Originally posted by infinite
I wouldn't say extreme. For example, lets say you were to state "I am a UK nationalist and proud"...is that bad?

hmmm...the statement itself is not bad...but i'd have to know more in detail about their views on the world and their policy to others whether i
could give a better opinion on whether they are bad..sorry

Originally posted by UK Wizard
hmmm...the statement itself is not bad...but i'd have to know more in detail about their views on the world and their policy to others whether i
could give a better opinion on whether they are bad..sorry

I think that in nationalism, the just balance between the sense of belonging to a nation and the sense of belonging to a world community must be
achieved.

Nationalism need not be something bad. In a lot of cases, nationalism has kept a people together through hard times - for example, Poland during the
Russian occupation in the 19th century. Nationalism can restore hope and pride when a people is going through adversity. On the flipside, it can also
encroach on other peoples' freedoms.

I don't think that nationalism should be condemned because of the bad manifestations of it. That would be like throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.

Nationalism is the idea that ones country is superior to another. Often these people have little rational explanations for why they believe there
country is superior.

It's false pride.

I perfer globalism, the idea that we can all work together to achieve a common goal rather than work against one another.

Nationalism is behind Bush and his crusade in the middle east, he believes all the world should run according to American style "democracy" and hard
lined capitalism. But you can see these "terrorists" are really freedom fighters to some.

No it isn't. Oftentimes it is a result of a a well-deserved sense of accomplishment for the good we've done.

I perfer globalism, the idea that we can all work together to achieve a common goal rather than work against one another.

Nationalism is behind Bush and his crusade in the middle east, he believes all the world should run according to American style "democracy" and hard
lined capitalism. But you can see these "terrorists" are really freedom fighters to some.

Tell me, does this sound like the nationalism you attribute to Bush?

A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Any type of nationalism must be closely watched.. someone who believes there country and the people living in it are superior to another could be an
indictation of an aggressive mindset.

The same could be said of internationalism, communist Russia invaded and absorbed eastern europe, Russia believed itself superior over the US and
western Europe.

Don't forget every political idealogy are turn extremist not just nationalism.

Actually, for my Masters degree I studied how Acadians and Pueblo Indians alike overcame very trying times by inventing "myths" that gave them pride
in who they were, gave them back some importance in the scheme of things (the Pueblos believed their rituals helped the sun rise every morning) and
also kept them together as a group.

Nationalism is a state of mind, a state of emotion (part of me can't explain why I become tearful when the fireworks go off on Canada Day, and I bet
a lot of Americans can't explain why they react strongly to the view of their flag, either). Nationalism is also a tool. What you do with that tool
defines if that nationalism will be good or bad.

Originally posted by DrSpeedo
I personally dont get the point with identifying me self with a flag, a religion, a football team etc.. I am me and you are you.

I don't know who you are, but I know who I am. I am me because of what I believe in, because of the God I worship Who was gracious enough to allow
me to be where I am, under teh jurisdiction of the flag that I proudly display.

As far as football; I am with you, but I know too many people who eat live and breathe Alabama or Auburn football to think there isn't something to
it.

I love it though. It's fun when someone says, "How'd you like the Iron Bowl last weekend? We kicked your butt, huh?" The person sying
that doesn't have a jersey, doesn't play on the team; heck, his raggedy pick-up hasn't even ever touched the property of Univ. of Auburn, yet it's
"We"!

Nationalism must always be viewed with suspicion, as nationalism is often used to justify fascist ideas and legislation (the patriot act,
anyone? )

The same case could be made against liberalism; taken to the extreme, it hides communistic agenda.

you raise an interesting point. However, assuming 'liberalism' in this case means 'concerned with individual rights and liberties', liberalism in
its extreme form is counterposed to the ideals of communism. That is, since communism emphasises collective rights rather than individual, if
liberalism was to be taken to the extreme, two parties' individual rights are necessarily going to come into conflict (eg the smoking debate: the
right to smoke vs. the right to clean air). This would result in a heirarchy of importance of rights, exactly the opposite of the communist mission.

Nationalists tend to be just a little "irrational" sometimes, and in my nation, Australia, it tends to come in different forms....

There are the British nationalists, meaning those that believe in protecting our British heritage, remaining a monarchy, and practically being
subserviant to the "motherland" etc.

And then their are those that genuinely dislike Britain, and belive that in every endeavour Australia should put its own interests before others, and
tend to glorify Australian history without consideration, including examples of British "betrayal".

The reason I bring this up is because it is amazing how the two forms of nationalism (the first seems to be a slightly perverted type though), are
defined by socio-economic factors. The first is common in the middle to upper classes, and the second is found generally in the lower to working
classes.

I am sure that this isn't the only example of nationalism being linked to socio-economic circumstances. Do ATS members have any other examples?

Originally posted by Volkgeister
There are the British nationalists, meaning those that believe in protecting our British heritage, remaining a monarchy, and practically being
subserviant to the "motherland" etc.

as you should be

(only joking)

---------------------------------------------------

From the posts i've seen so far, nationalism means different things to different people and countries.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Any type of nationalism must be closely watched.. someone who believes there country and the people living in it are superior to another could be an
indictation of an aggressive mindset.

The same could be said of internationalism, communist Russia invaded and absorbed eastern europe, Russia believed itself superior over the US and
western Europe.

Don't forget every political idealogy are turn extremist not just nationalism.

Russia never practiced communism, it was a label often exploited by the bourgeois in the West. For one example, Russia had a ruling class... and
there is no ruling class under communism. And Russia had a system of equalization of wages, and true communism does not equalize wages. Under
capitalism there is a ruling class, hence the elite in the bourgeois who have more control over govenrment than the common people do.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.